<ol>
<li><p>re barboza’s post about cheating in cs101: you can’t get an honor trial when it would be “the TA and the prof saw you cheating” versus “i wasn’t cheating, i was looking around to think” - no hard evidence. i let the professor confirm he was cheating when i first saw him, and deal with it thereafter. that’s why the other kid i caught cheating didn’t get brought up on honor charges, either (no hard evidence). there is so much cheating in the eschool/cs101…</p></li>
<li><p>a few pages back a person commented how professors wouldn’t proctor tests if they trusted honor. i have many professors who either give the test and go to their office and come back later (or ask a student to put the tests in a folder for them and/or have students drop the tests in their mailbox) or give take home tests. the classes where professors need to proctor are the huge intro classes (like, cs101). the only classes that professors actively proctored (as opposed to staying, but doing other work - playing on their computer, etc) that i’ve taken were 300+ person intro courses.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>are you talking about the lab cheating incident? i was referring to the final in cs101 where the guy who sat next to me was caught cheating, and the professor just told him to “stop it” and let him continue the exam. you were probably away or at the front of the hall… also in all of my math classes (about 25-30 people in one class), professors have always proctored all tests.</p>
<p>That is slightly ridiculous that you accuse me of being a racist, intolerant jerk just because I think underaged consumption of alcohol can be harmful.</p>
<p>Huh?
10char</p>
<p>After reading the article about how Smith lied, I think many of you are missing out on a significant aspect. I didn’t go to UVA, but another school that takes their honor very seriously and anyone will tell you that if a professor (or power-hungry TA type) asks you if you finished your paper yet, you just tell the TRUTH even if you haven’t started it. Obviously, this is isn’t the worst honor violation that can be committed, but if he would have just said, “hey, I forgot that assignment was due and I haven’t done it yet. I’ll E-mail it to you in two hours” nothing would have happened. Even if Smith was given an F in the class it was ONE credit.</p>
<p>People who did not go to schools with honor codes might find this harsh, but if you went to a university that had a real honor code you would know that professors are much more flexible as a result. It is common place for students to get an extension on a paper or just receive a letter grade lower because professors assume you are telling the truth. Should the two “teachers” have turned this case in as an investigation? Probably not. Once Smith was investigated though he absolutely committed an honor violation.</p>
<p>Some of you have interesting moral logic. </p>
<p>Did this man try to smuggle marijuana into Singapore? Wasn’t he dumb when he knew that he could be executed for that by hanging? (They make those warnings on planes flying into Singapore…alongside the demonstrations for how to wear your lifesaver.) Clearly, no matter how much a system needs reform, the stupidity of committing such an infraction against such a system totally justifies the punishment.</p>
<p>I mean, what if UVA was its own autonomous community and punished honor infractions with … death? I mean, that would be like the ultimate single sanction. Going by some of the replies here, it wouldn’t surprise me if some of you here would unapologetically remark in a manner like the following: </p>
<p>“But he should have known the penalty was death! If you don’t like his punishment, change the system! It’s too late for him, though.”</p>
<p>Well spoken, Galoisien. I keep checking this thread praying and hoping that I’ll see that someone in the hierarchy of UVA rectifies this terrible wrong for this poor student. I’m ashamed of UVA and I’m also sort of terrified, for no good reason, but I can see how someone’s life can just be allowed to go nuclear and no one at a higher level seems to blink an eye; that terrifies me.
I don’t buy any of Cav 302’s explanations. Sorry, I usually agree with Cav, but I am so disgusted right now.
I pray and hope that this student and Sad Momma’s child can emerge from this horrific period of their lives. I’m also frightened that people put into such desperate situations might be capable of doing desperate things. Come on UVA, think about it??!!
TJ would not approve of this heartless approach, IMHO.</p>
<p>A lot of people at UVA are pretty happy with the status quo and I find that a lot of the people who defend honor and the single saction are just that, for the sake of “tradition”</p>
<p>Why does everyone on this thread seem to be so tolerant of blatant lying?</p>
<p>With cases such as lying, one should view the lie in both the effect of the lie and the state of mind/intent of the individual when the lie was told.</p>
<p>In this case the effect of the lie is clear. It makes a UVA degree less honorable/credible.</p>
<p>The state of mind/intent of the individual also seems clear (unless someone is going to claim that he was insane): He lied to be able to hand in a paper late. He was in no state of desperation as there were many options open to him. In this way the lie was avoidable with little personal cost.</p>
<p>If the defendant is so obviously guilty on these two counts, how can anyone defend him, even if his trial was arguably unfair? Letting him off due to an error in process is akin to letting a murderer off because he wasn’t read his Miranda Rights upon arrest; it’s just not right. The punishment is up for debate, but expulsion doesn’t seem far off to me as the lie was so easily avoidable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh … that’s why there’s something called “dismissal without prejudice”. Maybe you should look into it.</p>
<p>Also, there were so many things wrong at trial that it isn’t just one error. After all, being read your Miranda Rights is useful – because what if you really had a false or unreliable confession and your only evidence was based on that confession?</p>
<p>What was Mary Siegel’s evidence for Jason Smith’s lie? The time stamp of the file on a USB drive. I don’t know that was Mary Siegel was such an expert witness on USB filesystems, but often the metadata of files being transferred between different physical media doesn’t copy … the effect: a modified (and unreliable) timestamp. It often depends on the protocol used to effect a copy. You truly could have written an essay 1 year ago and copy it onto a USB drive, and it would show up as being created and modified 2 minutes ago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So is the state of mind of trying someone trying to smuggle pot aboard a plane into Singapore.</p>
<p>Clearly this justifies the pot dealer’s hanging.</p>
<p>I wonder how dismissal without prejudice links up with double jeopardy? Just a thought. Regardless, while this legal term may slightly discredit the legal feasibility of what I have said, I feel that the core meaning remains intact.</p>
<p>I recall reading about more than just the time stamp. It was certainly not the main focus of the trial from what I have read about it and even with the stamp aside (because I do agree that it is not a strong piece of evidence) I still believe the remaining evidence is enough.</p>
<p>My sanity statement was only to clarify that the person committing the crime was of a sound mind and therefore able to be held accountable for his actions. This is exactly why a drug smuggler or a murderer is held accountable for his or her actions and, in your case, hung.</p>
<p>What I am trying to say is that if your problem is with the Honor System, fix it, but don’t go off acquitting people of their wrongdoings along the way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cav, many of us would appreciate it if you would describe how the process works. Why dont most cases make it to trial? Who decides which cases will move forward, and on what basis?</p>
<p>Having been part of Honor, what changes would you recommend?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is where we disagree. Mary became invested in the outcome of this trial. She should not have been conducting further investigations or had anything to do with investigative panels. It seems that because she bought the charge she went too far in manipulating evidence. </p>
<p>Changing the Font size on the papers when no standard had been established. This is IMO manipulating evidence.
Not checking further the date stamp on the flash drive, or the computer in the library Smith contends he uses.<br>
Not allowing for any calibration of time/date stamps on emails that were presented.
Taking notes and using them (reading them during her testimony) to deliver heresay evidence that she had no first hand knowledge of?</p>
<p>Not assuring two fourth year students were on the jury. Although I don’t know that Siegal had anything to do with this.</p>
<p>Im really trying to understand this process and as an outsider it all seems so vague and arbitrary.</p>
<p>You’ve got to wonder what he was thinking. If he just apologized for the missed assignments, he’d fail the class - and still be in the college</p>
<p>You think an apology is going to cure the power-tripping addiction of Mary Siegel’s? I doubt it.</p>
<p>I think that ssnakeggirl meant apologized while still in the class, not during the trial.</p>
<p>I’m not sure Mary Siegel has any significant notoriety to worry about, employer-wise. After all, when you google “Mary Siegel” – the first 50 results all refer to other people and there is no hint of any scandal.</p>
<p>First, Powderpuff- thank you for your compassion. You are absolutely right to allude to the idea of suicide over this. I am certain it has occurred. I spent the night in the dorm after my daughter found out she was going to trial. I was that afraid. When we went to the health center the next day to get meds for depression, we were told that this occurs frequently. If you have not been through this, you would have no idea of the mental consequences. There is no doubt that our family has suffered from Post traumatic Stress, as have ALL of the families that I am not in touch with that have been through this process. Second, CAV- your arrogance is disgusting. It is people like you that have make Honor what it is today- a power hungry monopoly. Your use of the word “stupid” over and over makes me physically sick. YOU HAVE NO IDEA. How dare you? I can only say that my daughter’s counselor was nothing like you, and for that I am eternally grateful. When we were ushered back in the little room after the verdict, he hung his head for a full 10mins. My daughter was in the fetal position, hysterically crying and asking why, why, why didn’t they believe her. When he lifted his head, he was crying, too. Now you tell me, CAV- who was stupid here. My daughter, or the jury that couldn’t realize honesty when they saw it. One of her friends attended the trial and had been on the Honor Committee. When the verdict was read, she looked at me and said, “I have never been so ashamed of my university as I am now”. Cav- you owe me an apology for insinuating that any one that is found guilty is stupid.</p>
<p>Sorry, I meant to say “the families that I am NOW in touch with”… obviously I am a bit shook up.</p>
<p>Cav was involved with the Honor committee so obviously he has no idea what it must have been like to be in your daughter’s position.</p>
<p>I hope some other students run to be on the Honor System next year. As an outsider, it sure seems that those in power are abusing their power. The punishment to the students described in this thread are way too extreme for the “crime” - even if they were guilty and I’m not saying that they were. Give Smith an F for the class, but it is hard to believe anyone would think he deserves to be expelled for this infraction.</p>
<p>SadMama - my heart goes out to you and your daughter.</p>